Mashregh News Agency, International Desk, Hasan Shokouhi Nasab: On Friday, August 15, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet in Alaska. The White House has described this meeting as a “listening exercise” rather than a forum for final decisions.
Ahead of this encounter, on Wednesday evening, August 13, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy joined European leaders for a videoconference with Trump to reiterate Kyiv’s red lines. These include a verifiable ceasefire, no territorial concessions without Ukraine’s involvement, and meaningful security guarantees. Meanwhile, European officials warned that any agreement trading land for peace could undermine continental security and urged Trump to proceed only with Ukraine’s direct participation.
Following the virtual summit, Trump called his discussions with Zelenskyy and European leaders “very good” and stated that if his meeting with Putin goes well, he intends to arrange direct talks between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents.
this raises key questions: Why was Alaska chosen as the venue? What obstacles stand in the way of these talks? And what is the realistic outlook for this Alaskan summit?
Why Was Alaska Selected as Host?
The choice of Alaska results from a combination of security,geographical,diplomatic calculations and political messaging.
First from a security perspective: Alaska hosts Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage-a fully equipped military complex featuring multilayered access control, constant airspace monitoring, and facilities capable of hosting top-level officials under maximum confidentiality.
This base effectively creates a “closed security zone,” allowing control over all movements and communications during the meeting-something far harder to achieve in busy capital cities or civilian locations.
Secondly: Alaska’s geography offers strategic advantages. As America’s northwesternmost state-the closest US point to Russia-it shortens flight times for the Russian delegation while reducing security costs en route-and limits Putin’s time spent on US soil. Hosting this summit within American territory ensures full US control over logistics and physical security; yet as Alaska is distant from Washington’s power centers and media hubs it also reduces real-time political pressures
.
Thirdly: there is symbolic diplomatic significance. The United States is not party to the International Criminal Court (ICC) so arrest warrants issued by it against figures like Putin cannot be executed on US soil. Holding talks in remote Alaska sidesteps these legal challenges whom many European countries face when hosting Putin. Furthermore, Alaska evokes Cold war-era meetings held in isolated or neutral locations.
.
< p >
Fourth : It balances demonstration of strength with reduced political sensitivities . Holding talks inside America sends clear messages about dominance , but geographic distance from capitals softens tension .For Trump , hosting at home means managing meetings without persistent washington scrutiny ;for Putin , it offers an prospect to appear equal within US land but outside core power centers .
< p > < strong > Agenda Items & Main Obstacles
< p > the greatest obstacle ahead lies in Ukraine ‘s absence at negotiations . Well before these meetings , European leaders warned that any territorial or political deal struck without Kyiv ‘s participation or consent would lack legitimacy or durability .
< img alt = "Europe ' s Concerned View on Al askA ; Could Tr ump - PutIn MeetIng Change war DynamIcs ?" Height = "447" Src = "https://media.mehrnews.com/d /2025 /08 /14 /3 /5636970.jpg?Ts=1755125363471" Width = "780"/>
< P dir ="LTR"> This concern stems partly from historical lessons – especially 1938 ‘ s Munich Agreement where major powers decided Czechoslovakia ’ s fate without its representatives resulting ultimately n collapse of regional security structure at that time.This reinforces fears among Europe & Kyiv that excluding Ukraine now risks repeating those mistakes.
Further difficulty arises from fundamental gaps between Moscow & Kyiv positions.Russia insists upon recognitionof anexationofoccupied territories whereas Ukrainiansandallies viewany formal cessionasnon-negotiableredline.This deep division makes even initial discussions stalled unless firstagreed frameworkhumanitarian stepslike prisoner swapsortemporary truceare established.
Severe mistrust combinedwithinternal pressureson both sides adds hindrance.domestically w ithin USA trumpisunderpoliticalandmediascrutinythatconsidersanyconcessiontoPutinasbetrayal.similarly,PutinfacespressureinRussiatoshowstrengthnotretreat.These forces restrict diplomatic adaptability requiringcarefularrangementspreservingpublic imagesforboth.
Inthiscontext,thelikelyalaskaagendafallsintothreeparts:first,verifiableceasefireunderinternationalobs erverswithobviousmonitoring;second,apackageofsecurityguaranteesforUkrainenotnecessarily NATOmembershipbutlongtermmilitaryintelligenceeconomicsupport;third,talksonsanctionspossiblytargetedtem porarysuspensionsinexchangeforconcreteverifiedactionsbyMoscowsuchasfullprisonerexchanges.
Any seriousdebateonbordersorstatusofoccupiedregionsshouldfollowonlyafterwithdirectUkrainianparticip ationtolegitimizeandstabilizepoliticaloutcomesperEuropeanleaders.
The outcomes expected reflect Kyiv ‘ s distrust , Europe ‘ s caution ,andwhite house ‘ s messagethatitwillbealisteningexercise.T hree main paths can be outlined:
E xpected outcome one – neutrald eclaratio n wi th vague politic al language
Most plausible,resultisageneralstatementwithoutbindingcomm itmentsusingphraseslike “progressinmutualunderstanding”,”continuingdialog”,or”needforpeacefulsolution”.This impos esminimal politica l riskupontrumpandputinw hilesignalingdiplomaticchannelsremainopen.Thesent encecontainsnoschedulenoractionplanturn ingtheeventintosymbolicgesture.
E xpected outcome two – limited roadmap toward ceasefire plus humanitarian steps
Part ies might agreeonspecificmeasur esverifi ablegeneral п ceasefireatconflictlines,militaryprisonerexchangescivilianhostagereturns,andsettingdatenextmeetingthistimeinvitingUkraineplusEurope.Representatives.Displ ayedastangibleprogressithitsthebalancekeepspressureonMoscowyetfallsshortofcoredisputeresolution
E xpected outcome three – ambiguous accord over territorial matters
————————————
Seen by UkraineandEurope’asriskiestopportunityhere.Trump&Putinmayinformallyorexplicitlyaccept”land-for-cease fire “withoutstrongsecurityguaranteesorKyivparticipation.Theresult wouldvalidateRussiancontroloverm ilitarygainsweakenEuropeansecurityarchitecturecr ackunitedWesternfront.
IntheendweightassignedeachpathdependsuponinternalpressurestrumpputincapacityEuropetoinfluencebeforemeetingreadinessformultilateraldialoguewithUkrainepresence.
SummingupobserversviewA laskameetingmoretestpositionsmeasureflexibilitythanfinalplatform.D ueremotenessandrestrictedsetupth esecondi tionsmakeitlessanendpointmoresoapoliticalstarter.Despitesummaryresultsevenconcretesmallstep (e.g.humanitarianan dcommicationchannel)couldshiftdiplomaticequationsamidprotracted_conflict.
دیدگاهتان را بنویسید